Sen. Chris Murphy and Rep. Jim Himes joined local and state politicians, law enforcement officials and mental health advocates Thursday afternoon at the Yerwood Center in Stamford for a roundtable discussion on reducing gun violence in the city and the rest of Connecticut's urban areas and ongoing efforts to change gun and assault weapon legislation both on the state and national level in reaction to the Sandy Hook shootings.
According to Murphy, the roundtable, which included Rep. William Tong (D-141), Stamford Police Chief Jonathan Fontneau, CT State Police Major Bill Podgorski and Sherry Perlstein, executive director of Child Guidance Center of Southern Connecticut, would serve as a conversation starter "to make sure that the laws we pass make the likelihood of shootings [like Sandy Hook] lower" and reduce the amount of "men and women in Stamford and across this state that are gunned down."
Murphy told attendees that he believes if Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza had to stop sooner to reload his weapon, more lives might have been spared.
"Clearly, in my mind, there is no reason why anyone should have access to a military-style assault weapon or a magazine clip that holds 30 or 100 bullets," he said. "I believe in my heart that there would be little boys and girls still alive today in Sandy Hook, Connecticut if the federal assault weapons ban was still in place and if that young man re-armed himself every 10 bullets instead of every 30 bullets."
Murphy also said that if Lanza would have had access to proper mental health services, the outcome of Dec. 14, 2012 might have been different.
"We have a system that directs an enormous number of errors, especially for young adults that want to seek help and for parents that want to seek help for their children," he said. "And so we need to have a conversation about how we can better make sure that there are resources available for those who have [mental] illness and may be prone to violence."
Himes said that advocating for tougher gun control laws is a "heck of a challenge" but if politicians, community leaders and residents work together, they could have enough impact to change the legislation locally and nationally. He warned attendees, however, about the "inflamed radical other side" that believes banning assault weapons violates the Constitution and specifically referred to his challenge of Texas Governor Rick Perry's views on gun safety and ownership.
"There is the possibility of changing the discussion at the national level because, frankly, the discussion is insane... The policy is insane nationally..." he said. "Any effort to have that commonsensical discussion about whether in fact anybody needs a 30-round clip is not acceptable. And the reason that discussion is not acceptable is because if the opponents of reasonable measures to reduce gun violence are forced into a discussion that is fact-based and data driven, they have not one piece of ground to stand on—nothing."
Treating Adolescents with Mental Illness
The discussion later turned to improving and increasing mental health services for students and their families and removing the existing stigma that those suffering from mental illness are more prone to violence.
Daniella Giordano, public policy director of the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) CT, told attendees that the state and the country needs to start looking at mental health illness as something that not only affects those that are afflicted and their loved ones, but everyone.
"It's about our children, it's about our communities that we all deeply care about..." she said. "And, first of all, it's about stepping away from who is affected by mental health issues. It's about all of us—whether it's someone that we care about who's struggling with something—including now the people in the Sandy Hook community and everyone in Connecticut, in the nation and the world. We need to think about this differently and not make this direct connection between people who have mental health challenges and violence because that absolutely not accurate... People with mental issues are much more likely to be victims of violence..."
Mirroring initiatives in President Obama's proposal to Congress addressing mental illness, the panelists also discussed the need for fully funded community-based health centers across nation, as well as funding to train mental health professionals so that adolescents aren't placed on waiting list to be diagnosed and treated.
Example, they (the gun grabbers) keep saying that the NRA and gun rights folks are against background checks. This is blatantly false, I challenge you to find one law abiding citizen that is against background checks for a gun purchase.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/opinion/australia-banned-assault-weapons-america-can-too.html?hp&_r=1& EXCERPTS: …what I, as prime minister of Australia, did to curb gun violence following a horrific massacre 17 years ago in the hope that it will contribute constructively to the debate in the United States. …on April 28, 1996, Martin Bryant, a psychologically disturbed man, used a semiautomatic Armalite rifle and a semiautomatic SKS assault weapon to kill 35 people in a murderous rampage in Port Arthur, Tasmania. After this wanton slaughter, I knew that I had to use the authority of my office to curb the possession and use of the type of weapons that killed 35 innocent people. I also knew it wouldn’t be easy. …I could reduce the number of dangerous firearms only by persuading the states to enact uniform laws totally prohibiting the ownership, possession and sale of all automatic and semiautomatic weapons while the national government banned the importation of such weapons. To make this plan work, there had to be a federally financed gun buyback scheme. Ultimately, the cost of the buyback was met by a special one-off tax imposed on all Australians. This required new legislation and was widely accepted across the political spectrum. Almost 700,000 guns were bought back and destroyed — the equivalent of 40 million guns in the United States. (continued below)
…The fundamental problem was the ready availability of high-powered weapons, which enabled people to convert their murderous impulses into mass killing. Certainly, shortcomings in treating mental illness and the harmful influence of violent video games and movies may have played a role. But nothing trumps easy access to a gun. It is easier to kill 10 people with a gun than with a knife. …In the end, we won the battle to change gun laws because there was majority support across Australia for banning certain weapons. And today, there is a wide consensus that our 1996 reforms not only reduced the gun-related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate. The Australian Institute of Criminology found that gun-related murders and suicides fell sharply after 1996. The American Law and Economics Review found that our gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74 percent. In the 18 years before the 1996 reforms, Australia suffered 13 gun massacres — each with more than four victims — causing a total of 102 deaths. There has not been a single massacre in that category since 1996. Few Australians would deny that their country is safer today as a consequence of gun control. ------------------------------ John Howard was prime minister of Australia from 1996 to 2007. END EXCERPTS
"To make this plan work, there had to be a federally financed gun buyback scheme" But then, what works in another country may not work here... for its not so much as a semi automatic weapon thats to blame as it is the "Easy access" to them by disturbed people. One would think that others who use these types of weapons in murders, crimes and other illegal deeds are more than likely, on some level, dangerous, crazy, have mental or psychological problems.. social outcasts and the like... How do they get these weapons so easily? I mean if one mad man can get them, any mad man can. I can think of only one sure fire way to stop all the madness, if you are going to remove every semi-auto firearm its got to be a full house cleaning sweep... they need to all be removed, from EVERYONE, citizens, police, military, the makers would have to be shut down, no more can be made or purchased, for any reason, by any one being it a government, nation, police.... and everytime one is found, it shall be destroyed and the person in posession be locked up for good. As long as they are produced, they will be on the streets and if you take them away from the law abiding citizens, then how do we protect ourselves when the bloods and the crips and whomever comes a knocking?
My takeaway is if I wanted to be like Australia, England, or any other country, I would just move there. Stop using every other place in the world as the ideal example of your argument, whether it be pro or con. Deal with the problems here in the US in a way that doesn't take away the rights from the lawful, rewards the criminals, and leaves our innocent unprotected. There is a middle ground if people could just take a step away from the partisan rhetoric.
Hello also to C Zac, I agree that every country is different in history and culture, but that is not a reason to reject comparisons, only to do it thoughtfully. I don't think it is fair to accuse advocates of gun control, whether ordinary citizens or law-makers, as "hopping on the coffins to make a point," as if we want gun control for sinister reasons rather than for the obvious: to stop the mass murders and thousands more individual murders that are committed with guns in America every year. We may disagree on the efficacy of this or that approach, but just as I assume you have good intentions and argue for what you believe is right and best, you should grant those with different views that same respect. Reasonable people will disagree, we should argue the reasoning and not the personalities.
Today I read the wikipedia articles on the DC v. Heller and the McDonald v. Chicago cases, and see them as a blow to my reading of the Second Amendment as defending the rights of the states to have militias rather than as individual right for self-defense. That doesn't mean I am persuaded by those rulings, but must recognize they are the SC's stand at this time. I find it interesting it took until 2008 for the Court to rule on whether the 2nd Amendment is an individual or collective (state) right, and hope someday those rulings will be overturned for what I consider to be a much saner view of the place of guns in our society.
"Murphy told attendees that he believes if Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza had to stop sooner to reload his weapon, more lives might have been spared." That's a scare tactic. I would expect that sort of assessment to come from the CT state police. But since it can only takes seconds to swap a magazine, it may not even be a conclusion that can be drawn. "Murphy also said that if Lanza would have had access to proper mental health services, the outcome of Dec. 14, 2012 might have been different." Quite possible, but again, I don't recall any formal conclusion about Lanza's mental health. The media has done a "great" job building the case and the speculation. But this is also the same media that misidentified the shooter (and number of shooters) to begin with. Political grandstanding before the facts have even been concluded and communicated.
Does Murph ACTUALY believe that if Lanza had to reload halfway through his rampage these kids would have jumped him and held him for the police or taken his weapons away and used them on him? Really? He could have done just as much damage in the 20 minutes even if he had a 5 shot bolt action 30-30 rifle. Scare, scare, scare... terror tactics to get their way. just like in the olden days of 9/11 with the color chart...lol "todays terror alert is orange... be prepared to hide in the nearest shelter and pry for your life!" Fear is a great method of control, ask the taliban, they know all too well how true this is.